SOURCES OF PARALYSIS: Our own Rush!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2013

Part 2—Paralysis from the professors: Is our nation trapped in a type of moral and intellectual paralysis? As Joyce thought his Dublin was?

We liberals noticed this problem when it appeared among our rival conservative tribe. Starting in the 1980s, we rolled our eyes at the “ditto-heads” who proclaimed their fealty to a tribal priest, Father Rush Limbaugh.

Yesterday, in a column in which he himself made an error, Paul Krugman described a problem which can plague a tribalized nation. Speaking of Republican voters, Krugman correctly said this:

“Base voters actually believe the stories they [have been] told—for example, that the government is spending vast sums on things that are a complete waste or at any rate don’t do anything for people like them” (our emphasis).

It’s true—Republican voters may believe various things they’ve been told, things which aren’t actually true. We liberals may be slow to see that we now have similar problems.

Alas! As a more active liberal world has started to form in the past dozen years, we have developed our own bands of besotted priests. These priests may gift us with our own false facts, with our own bogus stories.

Here at The Howler, we’ve often complained about the professors who choose not to speak. Increasingly, we liberals are now in the grip of the professors who do.

Unwisely, The Nation published it. When a nation’s professors behave this way, a form of paralysis may ensue, with its deadly work.

Right from the start, this professor does horrible work. That said, her work bears a constant scholastic veneer which shows up first in paragraph two, where she makes an erudite reference to a “Schrodinger’s cat box of suspense.”

Such dollops convince us gullible lefties that we’re in the hands of a highly literate guide. We may not notice the intellectual squalor being spread among our own tribe.

Did Professor Williams actually watch this trial? In this passage, she extends an erudite metaphor concerning George Zimmerman’s metaphorical slaying of dragons. But as our tribal desires get serviced, do we realize that the things she is saying aren’t true?

WILLIAMS (8/19/13): As St. George, moreover, Zimmerman became aligned with a solid, big-shouldered, brawny round table of law enforcement witnesses: buff, goateed men who identified with Zimmerman and traveled from all over the country to volunteer their expertise in court. Zimmerman was exalted by this company not as a full-fledged police officer but as one of those small, heroic souls endowed with a singular chivalry, a David to Martin’s Goliath. The defense even propped up cardboard cutout figures—one big, one small—to underscore the supposedly yawning gap in physique. And in a fact-free “demonstration” during final argument, O’Mara-as-Martin dropped a huge chunk of concrete, bigger and more jagged than a cinder block, in front of the jury box—as though onto Zimmerman—from a great and death-dealing height.

This latter was the ultimate metaphor of reversal: the sidewalk, by dint of Martin’s immense power, didn’t just abrade the back of Zimmerman’s head when he supposedly fell to the ground. Rather, an ugly chunk of it leapt up to smash him, hovering above him before crashing down upon his skull. It was counter-factual and illogical, yet, according to one juror, it marked a turning point for some.

In that passage, a professor from a ranking university offers a baldly false account of something attorney O’Mara did; offers an absurd account of the way Zimmerman claimed to have been injured; and offers a sneering, inaccurate account of what one juror said.

At one time, we liberals would roll our eyes when conservative voters bought this kind of bullshit from Rush. Now, it’s part of what we liberals do—and it’s the kind of “deadly work” the young Joyce sought to examine.

Is that passage accurate? Did defense attorney Mark O’Mara “drop a huge chunk of concrete, bigger and more jagged than a cinder block, in front of the jury box—as though onto Zimmerman—from a great and death-dealing height?”

Plainly, that’s what the professor says. Plainly, her claim is untrue.

Here’s what O’Mara actually said as he ever-so-carefully placed a slab of concrete on the courtroom floor:

O’MARA (7/12/13): George Zimmerman was in fact armed with a firearm, and we know that. We know he had a right to have it. And then it was said, how many times was it said, that Trayvon Martin was unarmed? Now, I'll be held in contempt if I drop this, so I'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. But that's cement. That is a sidewalk. And that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but Skittles trying to get home.

Everyone can make a mistake, as even Krugman has proven. Who knows? Williams may have relied on faulty memory as she made her ridiculous claim about what O’Mara did.

But even worse than the factual error was the ridiculous account which followed, in which this professor seems to claim that the sidewalk “just abraded the back of Zimmerman’s head when he supposedly fell to the ground.” The word “supposedly” is a marvel in that utterly clownish account—in that utterly clownish account which comes from a ranking professor. Her sneering account of that déclassé jury completes a hat trick which reeks of a growing paralysis.

We’ll look at what the juror in question actually said at the end of this piece. For now, let’s return to the start of this professor’s piece—her long imitation of Rush.

As she opens her lengthy piece, Williams engages in standard pleasures. She luridly paraphrased unnamed pundits and engaged in on-line nut-picking. In these ways, any damn fool can prove any fool thesis she favors.

But just like that, our professor shows that her possible contempt for the facts will be matched by an open contempt for mere logic. In the following passage, she establishes an old favorite, the “double standard” allegedly displayed by Zimmerman’s acquittal.

Our tribe is pleased by double standards. In this case, look at the way this professor attempts to display one:

WILLIAMS: [W]hile the legal process rendered formal justice, there remain important, unresolved issues embedded in the widespread sense of delegitimacy, dissatisfaction and unfairness that lingers in the verdict’s wake.

Much of it comes down to an all-too-familiar double standard...For all the legal language of the courtroom, racialized narratives will emerge and form along the very same lines that Gordon Allport and Leo Postman identified in their research more than sixty years ago: in the “retelling,” a razor will leap “from the white man’s hand to…a colored man’s hand.”

And so, by the end of the trial, the 200-pound Zimmerman, despite martial arts training and a history of assaulting others, was transformed into a “soft,” retiring marshmallow of a weakling. The 158-pound Martin had been reimagined as an immense, athletically endowed, drug-addled “thug.”

Consider, by way of inverted contrast, the 2007 conviction of John White, a black man who shot an unarmed white teenager in New York in 2006. According to The New York Times, the victim, Daniel Cicciaro, “showed up at Mr. White’s house just after 11:00 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight.” Waking up to “threats, profanities and racial epithets,” Mr. White “grabbed a loaded Beretta he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.” At the trial, which the Times described as “racially charged,” the prosecution successfully argued that the case “did not hinge on race but the rash actions of a quick-tempered man who kept an arsenal in his house in preparation for such a situation.” White, unlike Zimmerman, was convicted of manslaughter.

Was a double standard involved when White was convicted of manslaughter, but Zimmerman was not? It ought to be embarrassing to see a professor make such a fatuous claim.

Whatever one thinks of either case, the facts involved in the two cases were quite different. If you have an ounce of sense, you know that a double standard can’t be deduced from such cases.

(For the New York Times’ fullest account of the White case, click here. After three years, White’s sentence was commuted.)

Except in a deeply tribalized world, no professor would allege a double standard based on “evidence” like that. But in our world, ranking professors start long articles in famous publications with hapless, embarrassing claims of that type. Williams then makes a sweeping claim about the way “women fare” under stand your ground laws. She bases this sweeping judgment on exactly one case, which she describes in a rather scripted manner.

Her article is an embarrassment. In more than 3600 words, Williams never describes, or attempts to evaluate, the defense which was actually offered in the high-profile Zimmerman case. She never discusses the evidence used to advance the claim that Zimmerman acted in self-defense after being attacked by Martin.

Like this hapless, denatured “professor,” we weren’t present in Sanford that night, and so we can’t tell you what actually happened. We can tell you what was presented in the courtroom during this televised case.

In the manner of paralyzed worlds, the “professor” refuses to do this.

This professor should be an embarrassment to all honest liberals. She is constantly making ugly claims which she doesn’t attempt to justify. She constantly offers short, invidious “quotations” without saying who she’s supposedly quoting.

She constantly retreats to her dragon-slayer narrative, giving us the impression that we’re in the hands of an erudite being. And she never attempts to state or evaluate the evidence presented and used by the defense in this case!

To those condemned to read her work, this evidence simply doesn’t exist. John Good, the eyewitness, doesn’t exist. Zimmerman’s injuries didn’t exist. The location of the fight didn’t exist. Instead, we get a professor’s sneering account of the way a jury decided:

WILLIAMS: [T]he sidewalk, by dint of Martin’s immense power, didn’t just abrade the back of Zimmerman’s head when he supposedly fell to the ground. Rather, an ugly chunk of it leapt up to smash him, hovering above him before crashing down upon his skull. It was counter-factual and illogical, yet, according to one juror, it marked a turning point for some.

Oh, that illogical jury! What can we upper-class people do with such crackers as these?

Williams offers a clownish account, then mocks a juror for calling it a turning point for some of the jury. But below, you can see what the juror in question actually said—this juror, who seems both smarter and more honest than this pathetic “professor.”

You might disagree with this juror’s verdict. But her statements here are perfectly sensible—and she doesn’t say that the concrete slab “marked a turning point for some:”

COOPER (7/16/13): Do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?

JUROR B37: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

COOPER: So when the prosecution in their closing argument is holding up the Skittles and holding up the can of iced tea and saying this is what Trayvon Martin was armed with, just a kid who had Skittles and iced tea, you felt George Zimmerman— Did you find that compelling at all, or did you find Mark O'Mara with the concrete block compelling?

JUROR B37: Mark, with the concrete block, definitely. The Skittles and the Arizona can were ridiculous to even put it up and compare the two. I mean, anybody can be armed with anything. You can bash somebody’s head against a tree or a rock or this concrete.

COOPER: So you believe that Trayvon Martin was slamming George Zimmerman's head against the concrete, without a doubt?

JUROR B37: I believe he hit his head on the concrete. I think he was probably trying to slam it. I don't know how hard George's head hit on the concrete. It hit enough to get damage, bruising, swelling. I think it was definitely enough to make you fear when you're in that situation.

COOPER: And the photos of George Zimmerman, the photos of his injuries, to you those were all—were those something you also looked at in the jury room?

JUROR B37: We did. We did. We did all the—that kind of evidence first, and then we listened to all the tapes afterwards.

COOPER: And that was important to you because that also made you believe George Zimmerman was legitimate in fearing for his life?

JUROR B37: I believed it. I believe because of his injuries.

In keeping with the rules of his guild, Cooper misstates the requirements of the self-defense law. But the juror makes perfect sense throughout, and she doesn't say what the professor alleged.

For the record, the professor gave us our serving of Skittles midway through her pretentious piece. Unlike an entire generation of American “journalists,” the juror was able to see that the Skittles were wholly irrelevant!

A person might reach a different verdict. But this juror is reasoning sanely, and she’s describing the actual evidence which was presented during the trial! By way of contrast, the “professor” is diddling herself and her readers. In 3600 words, she refuses to discuss or evaluate the evidence. She behaves likes a sad circus clown.

Moral and intellectual paralysis can come from many sources. In our world, we liberals were able to see it coming from Rush.

Today, our own tribe has its our own bands of paralyzed priests, just as Joyce’s Dublin did. Today, as then, such priests can paralyze our minds, and they will often arrive with unearned titles of respect.

Tomorrow: A very high priest named Lehrer

By the way: Did you know this about Rachel Jeantel:

“At 19, she could neither read nor write, looked twice her age but sounded half that.”

That is what the professor wrote. In fact, Jeantel was asked to read transcripts at various points in her testimony, and she seemed to comply.

She said at one point that she can’t read cursive writing, which is no longer taught in many schools. But whatever made the professor think that she can’t read at all?

Did this besotted pseudolib priest actually watch this high-profile trial? More to the point, can a nation with such elites avoid the type of paralysis denounced by Joyce long ago?

OK, first, it's "You're welcome." That first bit there? It's a contraction of two words: "you" and "are."

Also, we capitalize the "y" in this case because it starts a sentence. You seem to have gotten at least something about sentences into your meager brain, as you frequently deign to follow custom and use periods -- those little dots -- to end them.

Next, "Jeeeze [sic, but I fixed the cap on that one for you], its [sic, and we'll get to that one later!] ... and work on..." is a run-on sentence -- which is to say it's not a sentence at all, but rather two sentences misguidedly joined by an "and".

So you insist "It is Americans of Irish-Catholic heritage," do you? Bully for you. (By the way, if you're in a hurry and need to abbreviate "it is," the way we do it in English is like this: "it's.")

Leaving grammar to the side though, you will (or won't -- it doesn't matter a toss to me) forgive me if I completely ignore your advice on how best to ridicule you. It's my pleasure.

Ebenezer: [taking off his tall hat] Oh, splendid! Let me see... [opens up a card he has picked up from the desk] "A Very Messy Christmas." I'm sorry, Mr Baldrick -- shouldn't that be `merry'?

Baldrick: "A Merry Messy Christmas"? All right, but the main thing is that it should be messy -- messy cake; soggy pudding; great big wet kisses under the mistletoe...

Ebenezer: Yes... [going to hang up his coat and scarf] I fear, Mr Baldrick, that the only way you're likely to get a big wet kiss at Christmas -- or, indeed, any other time -- is to make a pass at a water closet.

However, be that as it may... [Baldrick gives him the card again] "A Merry Messy Christmas." `Christmas' as an H in it, Mr Baldrick.

Baldrick: Oh...

Ebenezer: ...and an R. Also an I, and an S. Also T and M and A... ...and another S. Oh, and you've missed out the C at the beginning. Congratulations, Mr Baldrick! Something of a triumph, I think -- you must be the first person ever to spell `Christmas' without getting any of the letters right at all.

An anonymous commenter yesterday challenged my claim that a disproportionate number of black spokespersons presented the facts of this case inaccurately. Because of that comment, I note that Prof. Williams is black.

I'm sure a disproportionate number of white people are misinformed about the President's place of birth. People are misinformed about a lot of things for a lot of reasons. Which is why I find so weird your apparent obsession with the racial composition of the misinformed.

Sorry David in Cal. The Anon.immediately above at 4:31 is me, your old pal, rick.Didn't want you to confuse me with all those other Anons. just wandering about the commentary thread with their identify cloaked by mythical tribal threads.

One reason I'm focused on race is that race is being shoved down my throat, although it shouldn't be. There's no evidence that this case had any racial content. A man who was half Hispanic and half white shot in self-defense a young black man who was beating the Dickens out of him. There's not a scintilla of evidence that either party was acting out of racial animus.

And yet, black leaders from our President on down have made this case into a black racial issue. Race hustlers promote this issue as a hate crime against blacks. The PBS NewsHour panel that included the error-ridden Professor Cobb consisted of a black moderator and 4 black spokespersons.

The "birther" crap was so obviously a concoction of the mainstream media. Sheesh. The most prominent "birther" was a neocon Russian emigre dentist. How the heck did she get on TV all the time? Cooked up to make opposition to Obama look petty and to deflect from the "truther" (9/11 truther) movement. I have no firm opinion on Obama's birthplace or 9/11 but since I now, in August 2012, have incontrovertible truth that the mainstream media, President Obama and the attorney general Holder are not honest, well, I can't discount any "conspiracy theories." There sure seemed to be a conspiracy to show me pictures of an 11 year old Trayvon Martin for months and months when an honest news media would not have done it even one time. They knew from the get-go that the deceased was 17 and looked nothing like his picture as an 11 year old.

It has to be said; black elites are no longer credible as a group. Individuals might prove themselves to be credible but the show they put on regarding this case makes them all suspect. They will lie and put on the offended act to make someone else uncomfortable to challenge their lies. The heck with all of them and its their own doing.

So Williams is "our Rush?" Williams has had a column in The Nationat least 20 years. Times I have heardanyone refer to her writing in conversation or print: 0. I guess The Nation needs to get her ona few more stations. The Nation does indulgethe worst of the race baiting left, no question about it.

I talked to Rush twice in the late 80's when he was on New York radio and not yet national. Now, he takes like 3 calls a day but back then I got through twice, once to say I thought he should not make fun of Barney Frank with his "My Boy Lollipop" themesong for Frank (Frank is pretty caustic himself but I thought Rush would be blamed if Frank committed suicide or something and he probably would have been) and then again when I told Rush that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" (to drugs) campaign was kind of silly. To be fair to Mrs. Reagan, she should not have been forced to have a "cause;" she should have been free to spend her time doing whatever she wanted to do.

Rush Limbaugh is not caustic at all and he was very pleasant and friendly. He's an entertainer and obviously a very talented one. I only listen to him once in a blue moon nowadays, only when I'm in the car in those hours. But I certainly don't think its fair to compare him with a deliberately dishonest Ivy League professor trying to get someone put in prison for years (via Holder/Obama "civil rights" prosecution) or killed (by monster lunatics who are threatening Zimmerman and his family.

We're supposed to pussyfoot around this, I know, but what is the race of this Williams person? I can't pretend to be deaf dumb and blind: Elite black commentators on TV (and there was a huge disproportion of them, way too many, and no hispanics or asians that I saw --- these elite black commentators were virtually all clowns, all dishonest, all putting on the "offended" act, all racial solidarity. It was shocking and in future, I will accord much less credibility to black elites even beyond the ones I saw on TV over this case because I have a strong reason to suspect they would be the same as these jerks. And thats fair. Plenty of generalizing of white people especially the jurors so turnaround is fair play: All elite blacks are suspect until proven otherwise.

And how the white commentators kow-towed to the elite blacks! Bob wonders why people didn't speak up to correct lies. Well, that was why.

Anon, you ignorant slut, have you noticed Rush Limbaugh is White? My point was in terms of popular impact, Williams has almost no impact and is therefore a poor comparison to Limbaugh. Some think El Rushbo is largely played out, could be true.

Wow. Thanks for the link. A black governor releases a black man convicted for killing a 17 year old who never touched him and it was not a national news story. Was it even a legal gun? New York has stricter gun laws.

How are black elites able to tolerate the poisonous level of hypocrisy in their own bodies? I would bet the Columbia professor knows about that case but I may be wrong because she is obviously not very bright. If she wasn't black, she wouldn't get a job at the lowest tier law school; non-black professors at the lowest tier law school would be embarassed if a colleague wrote that drivel.